Sep 22 2008
Cleric says Church owes Darwin an apology
[CNN]
The Church of England owes Charles Darwin an apology for its hostile 19th-century reaction to the naturalist’s theory of evolution, a cleric wrote on an Anglican Web site launched Monday.The Rev. Malcolm Brown, who heads the church’s public affairs department, issued the statement to mark Darwin’s bicentenary and the 150th anniversary of the seminal work “On the Origin of Species,” both of which fall next year.
Brown said the Church of England should say it is sorry for misunderstanding him at the time he released his findings and, “by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand (Darwin) still.” The Church of England said Brown’s statement reflected its position on Darwin but did not constitute an official apology.
The church’s stance sets it apart from fundamentalist Christians, who believe evolutionary theory is incompatible with the biblical story of the Earth’s creation. Darwin was born into the Church of England, educated at a church boarding school and trained to become an Anglican priest. However, his theory that species evolve over generations through a process of natural selection brought him into conflict with the church.
The Church of England did not take an official stance against Darwin’s theories, but many senior Anglicans reacted with hostility to his ideas, arguing against them at public debates.
At an Oxford University debate in 1860, the bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, famously asked scientist Thomas Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed to be descended from a monkey. Critics included the Rev. John Stevens Henslow and Adam Sedgwick, both scientists who had taught Darwin at Cambridge. Sedgwick wrote that he found some of Darwin’s ideas “utterly false and grievously mischievous.”
Brown said that from a modern perspective, it was hard to avoid the thought that the reaction against Darwin was based on what would now be called the “yuck factor … when he proposed a lineage from apes to humans.” Brown called for a “rapprochement” between Christianity and Darwinism.
Read more here.
[From me]
Apologize for what? Darwin’s theory is just that a theory. If I found out that God used Evolution it wouldn’t destroy my faith but I see no where in Scripture where it talks about Evolution. Genesis clearly says that God created the heavens and the earth and God created man. It doesn’t say he created an Ape that became man. The church owes no apology but Darwin will answer for his terrible theory.
What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
16 responses so far
I’ve always thought that the biggest apology Darwin owed was to monkeys, myself.
Bob Cleveland’s last blog post..What Was Jesus’ Favorite __________ ?
Kevin…with this attitude, I’m thinking you might need to apologize. I’m sure we could start some kind of list of things that you need to apologize for. Have you overslept the last week? Apologize. Have you forgotten to turn on your turn signal? Apologize. Did you forget to use your salad fork instead of that bigger folk? Apologize. Did you forget to put the lid down for the wife? Apologize. [Okay, that's probably a good idea on that last one.]
These apologies (minus the last one) deserve about as much attention as does the one in your article…
M. Steve Heartsill’s last blog post..Here Kitty Kitty
Hi Kevin,
.
As an Anglican on the evangelical side of our house (there is a pretty strong evangelical presence in the Anglican church), I agree that this apology is silly – but maybe not for the same reasons stated by many other evangelicals. I believe that the acceptance of biological evolution (including common descent) is compatible with a biblically based and orthodox Christian faith. Although some early church members (eg. Wilberforce) certainly challenged Darwin (and were not necessarily kind in the process), many other church members supported him. In fact, from what I understand, many members of the science community treated Darwin much more harshly than by the Church itself. Maybe it is the scientists that should be apologizing for their past sins
steve martin’s last blog post..Ingroup-outgroup Bias in the Origins Debate: Part One
The people who support Darwinism have never even read his book because HE tells us exactly what would falsify HIS theory (like a good scientist should do). And wouldn’t you know it, falsification has occurred the exact way HE said it would occur. Darwin himself gave us a litmus test for his writings, and his theory has failed that test. Some evidence points to the fact that Darwin may have realized his error later in his life, though we cannot be certain of this.
The church owes no apology. If we evolved from Apes, why are there still apes? Where is the missing link? Where is evidence of evolution in the fossil record? More importantly, how can evolution explain the creation of a species from nothing?
I tend to believe in intraspecies evolution, and I think most people can agree that that may happen to some extent, but interspecies evolution is quite a faith.
Michael’s last blog post..2 John
What puzzles me is how adults, who are obviously able to think and reason, are willing to eschew all responsibility for their lives and put it in the hands of a myth created thousands of years ago by a bunch of sheepherders.
I think the sheepherders ought to apologize to modern mankind for the virus they created and those in power propagated solely to rule. Where’s the theory of religious evolution? How can we stamp out this disease?
Michael…the longer I am married, the more “evolving” my wife says I do! She says, given enough time, I’ll be a great human and husband!
M. Steve Heartsill’s last blog post..Here Kitty Kitty
Kevin,
When you say that Darwin’s theory is “just a theory,” what do you mean? Do you mean it in the way that Gravitational Theory is just a theory? What do you feel would be a stronger affirmation of evolution in the realm of science than a theory?
Michael,
How is the Theory of Evolution falsified?
Steve,</strong
:))
Oops! Messed up that tag.
I apologize to all who read my post with the messed up tag, and to Kevin for messing up his Comments section on this Post.
The article states very clearly that the purpose for this preposterous “apology” is to facilitate a ‘“rapprochement” between Christianity and Darwinism.’ The church wants to promote reconciliation? How can Christianity be reconciled to Darwinism? Darwinian Evolution is based on the presumption that the Universe originated on its own, by way of preexisting material. Materialism and Theism will always be entirely different worldviews - there is no possible way to “reconcile” the two because they are fundamentally different. This isn’t an apology to Darwin - the guy is ten feet under. It’s an attempt to try to merge two entirely distinct entities into a new, socially-correct religion…Darwinocracy. What a joke!
Christa,
The theory of evolution is not concerned with how the universe originated or where matter comes from. The theory of evolution is only concerned with how species evolve from other species.
The church was wrong about slavery (Southern Baptists finally apologized in 1995). The church was wrong about women’s rights (unless you still think women shouldn’t vote). The pope finally apologized for condemning Galileo (Church VS Science–a pretty bad record!) The Crusades were kind of bad too I think.
Maybe the church ought to be a bit more careful about who it condemns and how confident it might be in properly interpreting Scripture. Maybe we shouldn’t be so afraid to apologize or admit we might be wrong. Isn’t pride also a sin? I’m just saying….
Howie Luvzus’s last blog post..America Facing Economic Crash when Bush Leaves Office!
Darwin said his theory would be falsified if no record of evolution could be found in the fossil record. To my knowledge, there is no such evidence.
Michael’s last blog post..2 John
Michael,
You’ll have to find that quote for me
Regardless of whether Darwin said that or not (he didn’t to my knowledge), it turns out that there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record. In fact, we have a huge fossil record, including instances of transitional and intermediate forms, which serves as overwhelming evidence for common decent.
What features do you believe are missing from the fossil record and how do these missing features falsify the theory of evolution?
It’s a little late to apologize when you’ve been dead for more than 100 years. Besides, The Church of England allowed Darwin to be buried in Westminster Abbey… what more do they owe him?
Ok, I’ll put my two cents in (and stir up those in our faith community whose opinions usually clash with mine).
I believe we who are Christians would be a lot better off if we started with the presupposition that however we got here was God’s plan. If we start there–instead of with Darwin was wrong, evolution is anti-Biblical, Genesis clearly states that humanity was an act of special creation, etc.–then we are (1) not equating faith with being anti-evolution, we are honestly arguing our interpretation of Genesis, and (2) just in case the evolutionists are right, we not only don’t have egg on our faces, but we are living out the love of Christ toward them–a plausable basis for reaching “them” for Christ. After all, the church (Catholic Big “C,” catholic little “c,” and Southern Baptist) has been wrong at times in its interpretations of what the Bible says, viz. solar-centric verses geo-centric solar system, slavery, and the civil rights movement just to name three.
FYI, I am not a Darwinist evolutionist, but like Steve Martin I think suggests, there is plenty of room with the Christian faith for goal-directed evolution.
Ask-an-athiest is right that evolution is concerned only with biological systems and not astronomy or celestial mechanics. The origins of stars and the universe is astrophysics, and while they may use the word “evolution” it is in a different contect and with a somewhat different definition than that used by biologists. But AAA, I suggest you don’t get involved in a debate with the Answers in Genesis crowd about the fossil record. Their perspective is that what you and I might regard as an intermediate species is nothing more than a completely separate species, and the only way they even might concede otherwise would be if we had a fossil example of every single animal in the evolutionary track, plus that tagged with a timeline/birth record that was somehow inarguable. And we all know that isn’t going to happen, because fossils occur only under rather rare conditions.
Because Christ lives,
John Fariss
John,
You’re right about the Answers In Genesis crowd. They can be a bit off-centered in their requirements for evidence; that is, the propositions they are willing to accept based on paltry evidence vs. the propositions they are willing to reject despite a preponderance of evidence. Do you reckon they required the same degree of evidence before deciding to accept the Bible’s claims (or at least their interpretation of them) as “Gospel”? :^)
I agree with most of what you said. But I wonder why you would start with the presupposition that it was God’s plan that brought us here. Wouldn’t it make more sense to examine any reasonable claims about our origins, and then accept the one that is the best fit for the available evidence?